Dear Scott
Over the past six months you have made
several comments anonymously on my blog. At first, your petulant, slightly
irrational writing style and self-righteous tone gave you away. Then you began
to change your style, to hide your identify, but it was still pretty clearly
you making lots of anonymous comments in defense of Scott Neeson and doing all
you could to discredit me – all the while refusing to answer any questions at
all.
You are a master at the art of not
answering questions.
Yesterday you made a series of comments
but forgot, in your aggrieved pique, to hide your writing style. Here is the
last one of any substance. I will respond to it with another ‘inane rant’ from
me:
“Yes
James, there is no question that the journalist referred to the girls as
orphans, perhaps you should be writing to Lucie to question why she described
them as orphans and not posting another if your inane rants. Please also see
the definition of Orphanage as described by Wikipedia, possibly you are unaware
in Asia that most institutions that take care of children are referred to using
the general term of "orphanage"
"It is frequently used to
describe institutions abroad, where it is a more accurate term, since the word
orphan has a different definition in international adoption.[1] Although many
people presume that most children who live in orphanages are orphans, this is
often not the case with four out of five children in orphanages having at least
one living parent and most having some extended family."
How do you know
that after 2 years of investigating Fletcher four different investigating
bodies came up with nothing, do you have that in writing from them ? Maybe if
Fletcher is stupid enough to keep pushing for a trial then everything they
found will be brought up and his sentence will actually be extended, then I am
sure he will not thank you for your interference. Surely he must realize by now
that he is only a pawn in the game of your vendetta against the many people in
Cambodia you despise, you openly admit you are no friend of his.
The question
could also be asked why it is not his family in the UK that are fighting for
him. Why do you not post an open letter to his children asking them about his
past, I am sure if they see him as a warm caring father instead of the
convicted child sex offender he is they will willingly come forward and it will
surely help the supposed support you are giving him.
As I thought - you have
no proof of children sleeping 3 and 4 in a bed but are just relying on rumour,
innuendo and scuttlebutt as you put it. No proof whatsoever Mr Ricketson.
You
have no axe to grind with Scott - That is sheer nonsense, please also show me
where I have ever said you have no right to ask questions of Scott Neeson (or
anybody else in Cambodia for that matter) As far as I am concerned you have the
right to ask anybody anywhere any question you wish to ask, but they also have
the right to ignore your question if they wish (as most people appear to - not
only in Cambodia but within the NSW health, Screen Australia etc etc etc) As
somebody commented on one of your recent posts you appear to be nothing but a
serial pest with nothing else to do to pass your time and more interest in
criticizing others than doing anything to help them.”
Regardless of how the word ‘orphanage’
might be used in Asia, the article in question was written for an English
language newspaper by a journalist who knows full well what the word ‘orphan’
means to an Australian reader – a boy or girl without parents.
If there is any confusion here about
whether the girls are orphans or not, why don’t you clarify the matter with an
answer? With words to the effect of:
“Yes,
all 9 of these girls are orphans with no families”
Or
“X
number of these girls are orphans and Y come from very poor families.”
Or
“None
of these girls is an orphan in the sense that we use the word in the West but
all are from very poor families – whom we have also been assisting financially
as their daughters receive a first class education that will make it possible
for them to help lift the entire family out of poverty?”
Or there may be another equally simple
answer that does not occur to me.
You ask how I “know that after 2 years of investigating
Fletcher four different investigating bodies came up with nothing?”
Read Andrew Drummond’s article:
http://www.andrew-drummond.com/2010/06/preying-on-garbage-dump-children.html
If the four NGOs had evidence that Mr
Fletcher was ‘grooming young girls’, and if that evidence was passed on to the
relevant Cambodian authorities, why had Mr Fletcher not been arrested at the
time Andrew Drummond wrote his article?
You ask “do you have that in writing from
them?” By which you mean, do I have in
writing from you, Steve Morrish, Thierry Darnaudet, Samleang Seila and CEOP
that they do not have evidence? I have asked you and the others if they have
evidence that Mr Fletcher was ‘grooming young girls’. Many times. None of you
have responded in any way at all.
(Whilst writing this I have learned, from
what I consider to be a reliable source, that none of Gina Rinehart’s 9
‘Cambodian daughters’ is an orphan.)
You write: “Maybe if Fletcher is stupid
enough to keep pushing for a trial then everything they found will be brought
up and his sentence will actually be extended.”
I know that you have no interest at all in
facts, Scott, but there are others reading this for whom facts are relevant. In
this case, the fact is that Mr Fletcher received a 10 year jail sentence (in
absentia) for allegedly raping Yang Dany. He was not accused of or found guilty
of ‘grooming young girls’.
Not only does Yang Dany deny being raped
but the medical report prepared for the Phnom Penh Municipal Court states that
she was a virgin after the alleged rapes.
If you have evidence relating to the
alleged rapes you should present it to the Court. David Fletcher has asked them
more than once to do so. You do not respond.
You claim that I have a vendetta “against
the many people in Cambodia (1) despise.”
Can you provide me with the name of one
person I despise and the evidence you have (on my blog, presumably) for this?
As for admitting that I am not a friend of
David Fletcher’s, of what relevance is this? I am a journalist and filmmaker. I
don’t need to be friends with anyone I might write about or make films about.
If you were falsely accused of rape and I was in possession of evidence that
you were innocent I would defend your right to a fair trial regardless of my
personal feelings for you – which, incidentally, have no component of hatred in
them. The same would apply, of course, for a lawyer. A lawyer does not need to
be friends with, or even like, his client to advocate on behalf of his client’s
right to a fair trial.
You write: “The question could also be
asked why it is not his family in the UK that are fighting for him.”
Mr Fletcher is alienated from his
children. They have believed what was written by Andrew Drummond, Richard
Shears and other journalists who jumped on the bandwagon. The same applies for
Liam Miller – alienated from members of his own family as a result of an
article published by the Phnom Penh Post.
As for the “children sleeping 3 and 4 to a bed” and some sleeping on the
floor, despite your insistence that you staff never talk to anyone in the
media, some do – regardless of confidentiality
agreements and being intimidated into silence. In the case of the family locked out of their
home for being $17 behind in their rent, they were visited by CCF after I
published a story about this and told never to speak with the media again.
As for the question: “Who has the right to
ask Scott Neeson questions, if I do not” you will be aware that a significant
part of the role of the 4th Estate is to hold people in positions of
power accountable for their actions. You are a person with a considerable
amount of power that accrues from the huge amounts of money you raise for CCF.
Almost exactly a year ago, another
journalist, Simon Marks, asking questions, making enquiries, refusing to be
deterred by spin, making a nuisance of himself, uncovered facts relating to
Somaly Mam’s fraudulent account of her life. He was doing what a good journalist does and,
in the process, I am sure, earning him the enmity of those who did not want
Somaly Mam’s scam exposed.
Mind you, Somaly Mam’s lies had been known
to the entire NGO community for many years before Simon Marks finally exposed
her. And it is this prior knowledge on the part of “, the Cambodian government
and MoSAVY, the American government, human rights groups, etc.” that is the
answer to the question implicit in this statement of yours:
“If
the international development community, the Cambodian government and MoSAVY,
the American government, human rights groups, etc. all think CCF is doing a
fantastic job, why would people be swayed to think otherwise by this bunch of
nut-cases?”
Well, , the Cambodian government and
MoSAVY, the American government, human rights groups, etc. will be swayed one day but probably not until
Time or Newsweek or some mainstream news outlet asks you questions similar to
those I have been asking for years now; some media outlet that you cannot
ignore quite as easily as you do me; some media outlet that will read your
refusal to answer questions, your refusal to allow CCF kids and staff to talk
with journalists, as evidence that you have something to hide; media outlets
that will find it very hard to believe that it costs CCF $4,000 per year to
house and educate one child. And so on.
It comes as no surprise that you (or those
acting on your behalf) put so much effort into shooting the messenger. However,
there will be other messengers – other journalists who will eventually smell a
rat and start asking the same questions I ask. You are just lucky that there
are none doing so just now. Your luck will run out, however, just as Somaly
Mam’s did. You can only control your life-narrative for so long before the
cracks appear and will be publick knowledge as were Somaly Mam’s lies years
before she was finally exposed in a way that could not be ignored.
cheers
James
Dear Mr.Ricketson,
ReplyDeleteYour assessment of Scott Neeson seems to be spot on. He reflects the attitude of an entire Industry.
This is a reminder of how bodies like the UN, Governments and the entire Aid Industry acts when they are caught in the act of (sexually) abusing children. The same was true when UN Troops were stationed in Cambodia and had the infamous K11 installed as their playground. Today in 2015 NOTHING has changed. The UN and all players in the AID Industry as well as Governments are actively covering up when some of their own start sodomizing kids.
Doesn't this mirror the situation we have in Cambodia at this moment ?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/29/un-aid-worker-suspended-leaking-report-child-abuse-french-troops-car
The UN’s instinctive response to sexual violence in its ranks – ignore, deny, cover up, dissemble.
Sandra Laville
Wednesday 29 April 2015 11.02 BST Last modified on Wednesday 29 April 2015 17.42 BST
A senior United Nations aid worker has been suspended for disclosing to prosecutors an internal report on the sexual abuse of children by French peacekeeping troops in the Central African Republic.
Sources close to the case said Anders Kompass passed the document to the French authorities because of the UN’s failure to take action to stop the abuse. The report documented the sexual exploitation of children as young as nine by French troops stationed in the country as part of international peacekeeping efforts.
Kompass, who is based in Geneva, was suspended from his post as director of field operations last week and accused of leaking a confidential UN report and breaching protocols. He is under investigation by the UN office for internal oversight service (OIOS) amid warnings from a senior official that access to his case must be “severely restricted”. He faces dismissal.
more
more
ReplyDeleteThe UN has faced several scandals in the past relating to its failure to act over paedophile rings operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kosovo and Bosnia. It has also faced allegations of sexual misconduct by its troops in Haiti, Burundi and Liberia.
The treatment of Kompass, a Swedish national, threatens to spark a major diplomatic row.
This month, the Swedish ambassador to the United Nations warned senior UN officials “it would not be a good thing if the high commissioner for human rights forced” Kompass to resign. The ambassador threatened to go public if that happened and to engage in a potentially ugly and harmful debate.
The abuses detailed in the internal report took place before and after Minusca was set up last year. Interviews with the abused children were carried out between May and June last year by a member of staff from the office for the high commissioner of human rights and a Unicef specialist. The children identified represent just a snapshot of the numbers potentially being abused.
Sex abuse poses 'significant risk' to UN peacekeeping, says leaked report
Read more
The boys, some of whom were orphans, disclosed sexual exploitation, including rape and sodomy, between December 2013 and June 2014 by French troops at a centre for internally displaced people at M’Poko airport in Bangui.
The children described how they were sexually exploited in return for food and money. One 11-year-old boy said he was abused when he went out looking for food. A nine-year-old described being sexually abused with his friend by two French soldiers at the IDP camp when they went to a checkpoint to look for something to eat.
The child described how the soldiers forced him and his friend to carry out a sex act. The report describes how distressed the child was when disclosing the abuse and how he fled the camp in terror after the assault. Some of the children were able to give good descriptions of the soldiers involved.
In summer 2014, the report was passed to officials within the office for the high commission of human rights in Geneva. When nothing happened, Kompass sent the report to the French authorities and they visited Bangui and began an investigation.
It is understood a more senior official was made aware of Kompass’s actions and raised no objections. But last month Kompass was called in and accused of breaching UN protocols by leaking details of a confidential report, according to sources.
Kompass’s emails have been seized as part of the investigation into the alleged leak. One senior UN official has said of Kompass that “it was his duty to know and comply” with UN protocols on confidential documents.
Bea Edwards, of the Government Accountability Project, an international charity that supports whistleblowers, condemned the UN for its witch-hunt against a whistleblower who had acted to stop the abuse of children.
“We have represented many whistleblowers in the UN system over the years and in general the more serious the disclosure they make the more ferocious the retaliation,” said Edwards. ”Despite the official rhetoric, there is very little commitment at the top of the organisation to protect whistleblowers and a strong tendency to politicise every issue no matter how urgent.”
UN sources confirmed an investigation by the French was ongoing – in cooperation with the UN – into allegations of a very serious nature against peacekeepers in the Central African Republic.
On Wednesday a spokesman for the French justice ministry told Reuters: “A preliminary investigation has been opened by the Paris prosecutor since July 31, 2014. The investigation is ongoing,” he said, declining to give further details.
A spokesman for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights confirmed an investigation was under way into the leaking of confidential information by a staff member.
Perhaps the word ORPHAN is "NGO Newspeak" used by the CCF?
ReplyDelete"I got orphaned from my parents and alienated from my khmer culture by the CCF. I am no longer connected with my family..... HELP !"
I for one, would love to hear more about your experiences. Please elaborate on your experience. So sorry to hear of your plight.
DeleteAnyone who thinks fletch wasn't grooming is kidding themselves. An elderly pedophile leaves the UK, where he has spent years in jail for getting underage girls drunk, having sex with them and filming it. He opens a bar in Phnom Penh's sleaze district. He meets poor, underage girls at the garbage dump. He pays the family of one to marry her. He takes her to his bar. He takes her to a locked room. He gets her to drink alcohol. He tries to undress her. He tries to touch her. That much isn't even contested, is it? That's grooming, no matter how you spin it.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe what I'm reading. Are you really having an imaginary conversation with Scott Neeson? After years of being ignored, you've decided you to attribute whatever anonymous posts you want to him?
ReplyDeleteThis shows again how deluded you are, and how little you care about the facts.
You care so little about the facts that you assign anonymous blog posts to someone and claim it as truth? As a trained and employed journalist, I find it pretty disgusting that you call yourself one.
The fact that Scott won't respond to you doesn't even matter anymore, you can just make it up.
If you are a trained journalist, ask Neeson yourself any of the questions I have asked and see if you get answers. Or do you think, perhaps, that it is of no relevance whether or not Gina Rinehart's 9 'Cambodian daughters' are orphans? Is it, in your journalistic point of view, OK call girls with families orphans or do you believe that accuracy in the use of such strongly emotive words is not important?
DeleteIf you are a journalist, why not identify yourself. Regardless of whether I am a journalist, a blogger or a filmmaker I do identify myself and respond to pretty well all comments made, including those that are abusive.
So, nothing to say about your pretend conversation with Scott?
DeleteThis lone anonymous blogger is now calling himself a Journalist ? What a joke ! What professional Journalist would enter a blog like cambodia440.blogspot.com anonymously ? The entire pattern of his rants and comments speak for themself. This is a person that is scared that his "Orphan a Khmer Kid" Empire will come crushing down and that ordinary Khmer People will see the exploitation scam behind it like they finally got to see at the Somaly Mam foundation.
DeleteSo they are scared like yourself? You post anonymously as most of us do - its not because we are scared, its because we dont want to advertise our names and end up the target of Ricketsons next delusional rant. Is this why you post anonymously or perhaps you are a fictions character that is part of the blog.
DeleteStop throwing stones at glass houses you moron!
Again - Still nothing to say about the pretend conversation with Scott?
DeleteAnd why on earth would I reveal my name? Why would that even matter? No journalist would want their name linked to this blog.
Dear Anonymous 11.06
DeleteWhen have I ever made anyone the target of a delusional rant?
Let's break it down further.
Which of my blogs, or which parts of them which paragraphs, which sentences (take your pick) do you consider to be 'delusional'. Since you use these expressions often ('delusional', rant', inane' etc) you should have plenty of examples to choose from. If you can find three, and quote them here for me (and others) I would appreciate it.
As for your being a journalist, I doubt it very much. No self-respecting journalist would write as badly as you do, use words such as 'delusional', 'rant' etc but would deal with the facts. A decent journalist would point out to me where I was wrong, mistaken or had lied about a specific matter. He would not write in the generalised way you do.
Or she, if you happen to be of the female persuasion!
Dear Anonymous 11.46
DeleteNo, nothing further to add to what I have written above. Ask me a specific question and I'll answer it.
As for not wishing to associate your name with this blog, why on earth are you reading it if you think it is crap? Do you have nothing better to do with your time?
Dear Anonymous 6.42
ReplyDeleteAs always, you make assertions not backed up by facts but by presumptions.
David Fletcher has never been convicted of a pedophile offence in the UK or anywhere else. he was convicted for having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl.
As the judge in the case acknowledged, the girl was a willing participant in both the sex and the filming. This is by no means an excuse. What Mr Fletcher did was wrong; against the law. However, the presumption that he must, therefore, have been 'grooming young girls' (as Scott Neeson alleged) is a wrong one.
Scott Neeson regularly surrounds himself with young girls and is to be seen in countless photos with these girls in his arms. Do you presume that he too must be a pedophile?
There are many foreigners who have opened bars in what you refer to as "Phnom Penh's sleaze district." Do you presume that they also must be pedophiles?
David Fletcher met poor families at the dump. So did Scott Neeson. So have I. How is it that you presume Mr Fletcher is a pedophile and not Scott Neeson, or myself, or others who have helped poor families working in the dump?
Both Yang Dany nor her mother Kheang Sekun insist that there was never any talk of marriage and no money was paid. They also say that David Fletcher never gave Yang Dany alcohol.
Som, the short answer to your question is, "Yes, pretty much everything you write is contested."
However, you are not interested in the facts and I am sure will be back with more of your presumptions.
More rape apologies.
DeleteDear Scott
ReplyDeleteWriting for the Daily Mail, Sally Lee’s article carries the banner headline reads:
“Australia’s richest person Gina Rinehart reveals she has nine adopted children. Gina Rinehart has been supporting nine orphaned girls from Cambodia.”
Now that it has been established that not one of Gina’s Rinehart’s 9 ‘Cambodian Daughters’ is an orphan, can you please explain why it is that you and Ms Rinehart are presenting these girls to the world as ‘orphans’?
Or, if the journalist who wrote the article and the writer of "From Red Tape to Red Carpet" are mistaken in their references to the girls as ‘orphans’, will you be correcting this error?
One quote from Lucy Morris Marr's article raises questions:
“Australia's richest person added that her girls are often treated to luxurious overseas trips and black tie events.”
Is Ms Rinehart also providing financial assistance to the families of the ‘orphans’ she has ‘adopted?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054754/The-girls-known-Cambodian-daughters-Australia-s-richest-person-Gina-Rinehart-reveals-NINE-adopted-children.html#ixzz3YkEXCT1n
cheers
Mr Ricketson, maybe it is somewhat inappropriate for you to be quoting the Daily Mail bearing in mind your post of April 11th. Hypocrisy at best on your part, not sure how as a "journalist" you can consider it ethical to do such a thing.
ReplyDelete"The problem with sensationalist newspapers like the Daily Mail is that facts, truth and evidence are much less important than having a good story to tell. And if such gutter journalism contributes to the destruction of a man’s life, the attitude of the sensationalist journalist is “tough shit”".
Why is it inappropriate to quote the Daily Mail? I have, as you have pointed out, quoted the Daily Mail before! If the Daily Mail has got its facts wrong, what is wrong with me pointing this out or asking if it is the case?
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Mail article was, in fact, written by an Australian journalist by the name of Lucie Morris Marr who works for the Herald Sun. I have written to Lucie to point out that she may have been mislead re these girls being orphans. She was not offended but thanked me and said she would look into it. And I would do the same if our roles were reversed.
So sorry, when an article is published against your friend Fletcher the Mail is a sensationalist newspaper and when you wish to quote one of its articles it is not a sensationalist newspaper - am I right. Or is it that Australian journalists are credible and British ones are not ? Come on James just admit you were wrong in forgetting you had slagged the Mail off a few days ago, apologise and move on with life.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 2.17
ReplyDeleteWhen I wrote about the Daily Mail in relation to David Fletcher my interest was in the factual inaccuracy of the article.
When I wrote about the Daily Mail in relation to Gina Rinehart's 9 'Cambodian Daughters' my interest was in the factual inaccuracy of the article.
What is the difference?
You live in a Manichean world in which there is good and evil, black and white. There are no shades of gray. Sensationalist newspaper are not always wrong or bad. 'Quaility' newspapers are not always good and accurate.
An answer for everything eh James, the way you try to twist words might fool some but most of us just see through the bullshit. As always I will let you have the last word (which no doubt will boost your ego a little more) as I really have better things to do than play word games with you. You haven't called me Scott today incidentally, whats wrong have you once again realised you are talking nonsense
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 2.31
ReplyDeleteGiven the amount of time I waste responding to comments such as yours I am adopting a new policy.
I will answer any sensible questions.
I have no problem being criticised or attacked if the person doing so backs up his/her argument with facts.
If I make errors of fact here and these are pointed out to me I will correct them.
I will not waste my time with trolls and people such as yourself whose criticisms are never more specific than 'bullshit', 'rants', 'delusional' or in this case 'you re talking nonsense.'
You are a troll, Anonymous 2.31 and should stop wasting so much of your time on a blog that you have such a low opinion of.
Anonymous 2.31 certainly has your number Mr Ricketson. Maybe Steve Moorish, Scott Neeson etc have had the policy you are adopting for a long time. That is why they ignore the nonsensical questions you continue to try and waste their time in asking. I am not sure if you are playing the pot or the kettle when you accuse people of wasting others time. Come on, back with another rant, you cannot help yourself can you
DeleteWow, the trolls are out in force tonight and it isn't even full moon yet.
DeleteIs there anyone prepared to answer the question that has led to so much troll activity: "Are Gina Rinehart's Cambodian daughters orphans or are they not orphans?
Yes, could we please move beyond arguing about who has the right to ask questions and what motivation Mr Ricketson might have for asking them and agree that the questions re important ones and worth asking. I work in the human rights sector and am very keen to know if these girls are orphans or not. If a mistake has been made by the writer of the book and/or the journalist who wrote the articles it should be corrected for the sake of the credibility of Scott Neeson and Gina Rinehart. If the girls are orphans and Neeson and Rinehart have given them a huge boost in life they should be congratulated. If the girls are not orphans it is to be hoped that Mr Rinehart's largesse has extended to the families also and has not been confined to the girls only.
DeleteI don’t agree it’s a valid question. Who gives a rats arse if they orphans or not. Scott Neeson is giving them a leg up in life which is more than James Fucking Ricketson is doing, a whinging cunt if ever there was one. The parents of the girls probably think Neeson is a saint and he is. And they’ll be happy when the girls grow up and make lots of money and can support them well in their old age.
DeleteAnonymous, apart from some of the colorful language you use what you say makes a lot of sense. Irrespective of all the shit people pile on Neeson he is doing a great job of helping others and I am sure all the families of Gina Rineharts "children" are a lot better off that they were before Gina came along. I really do not understand what business any of this is of Ricketson and his cronies
DeleteSo let me get this straight. Anyone with a lot of money can swoop into Cambodia and order some orphan girls from Scott Neeson, take them away from their families, send them to schools outside Cambodia and fly them to first class holidays while leaving the family wallowing in poverty.
DeleteI didn’t say anything about leaving the family wallowing in poverty dickflop. I am sure the families are taken care of by Scott Neeson.
DeleteThen why the fuck doesn’t he just say so?
DeleteBecause he’s told the world they are orphans and would look like an idiot if he came out and said ‘Well, they’re not exactly orphans, but don’t worry CCF is taking good care of their families too.” Neeson’s painted himself into a corner which is why he will never answer any questions about this.
DeleteAnd as James Ricketson would say - what has any of this got to do with Fletcher the convicted child sex offender (in 2 countries). Can we please stick to James original subject and not digress
ReplyDeleteI recall at some point during Ricketsons rant on khmer440 last year before he was banned that that he was accused of buying some underage girls virginity at the dump and that was why CCF didnt want to facilitate him visiting with some young girls.
ReplyDeletePeople like Rinehart belong to a group of very wealthy people around the
ReplyDeleteworld. Often enough these people "buy" kids for their personal, private
human Zoo. Madonna went to Mali to buy a boy even though this was against
Mali Law. With a troop of American lawyers in tow she pulled her human
zoo ambition off and exported the Mali kid. This kid's grandmother,
who took care of him, objected to the boy being "exported" but
Madonna nevertheless pulled him out. Angelina Jolie is another example.
She too has a human zoo with kids from all over the planet that she
proudly presents to the media ever now and then, just like Rinehart has
now.
Why do the CCF Trolls here think that this is "good" for these kids – to be dragged out of their culture and familiar environment and estranged from their own kind?
Parading foreign kids in front of Gala Dinner crowds who stare at these "lovely little
orphans from the other side of the planet", now packed into expensive
designer clothes in order to be admired, is CHILD ABUSE.
Make no mistake, people in the Aid Industry have no conscience when they
are asked by some rich celebrities to supply a kid or two. Scott Neeson
and his CCF have given a perfect example of this when 9 of his ‘Orphans’
were placed "under the wings" of Rinehart.
The reason why the TROLL-FRONT of the Aid Industry, CCF and Scott Neeson
in particular attack James Ricketson is that they fear for those
donations that keep rolling in. Once in the hands of foreign owned NGOs
like Hagar, CCF etc. the kids are actually alienated and pretty much
locked out from their normal every day life in Cambodia and most other
3. world countries around the world.
One other thing that becomes apparent is the fact that representatives
of the Human Rights Sector (Naly Pilorge for example) but also Thierry
Darnaudet, Samleang Seila of APLE aswell as Steve Morrish, Scott Neeson
are increasingly militant when someone dares to ask questions that need
to be asked. They think they are sooos good that asking questions is an
insult to their integrity. This response is common among people that have access to too much money. Money changes your attitude and character.
I am also certain that many of the troll comments here are being
organized as a "counter measure" by the NGO in order to ridicule,
alienate and perhaps even destroy critics. Look at the comment above this one about Mr Ricketson buying the virginity of a young girl. The Neeson Troll Squad wants to doto him what they did to David Fletcher.
Then you are saying that the 'POVERTY PIMP', is part of or runs the NGO troll squad? I'd have to agree with you.
DeleteThe comment of Anonymous 8.21 has been made by Scott Neeson or one of his trolls. It is best ignored. He is obviously panicking because he is now being asked whether the girls he gave (sold?) to Gina Rinehart are orphans. He has to shoot the messenger. Or try. Pathetic. Answer the fucking question, Scott, and stop telling your goon squad of trolls to discredit Ricketson in any way they can. Are the girls orphans? Yes? No?
DeleteCan somebody please call Mrs Ricketson and ask if her little boy is coming out to play today. I notice in his open letter that he quotes "(Whilst writing this I have learned, from what I consider to be a reliable source, that none of Gina Rinehart’s 9 ‘Cambodian daughters’ is an orphan.)" Coincidentally I notice on April 29th he thanks somebody that was having a beer with Steve Morrish who he "thinks" he knows for passing on the information. James, can you please answer my question - is it OK if we all take information as gospel from an anonymous blogger who was having a beer with somebody the night before ? Talk about clutching at straws. If I am wrong in my line of thought please bring some credibility back to yourself by naming the "reliable source"
ReplyDeleteScott Neeson, you fucktard stop trying to throw up a smoke screen and answer the fucking question. Are the girls orphans or not?
Delete@ Anonymous 7.33
DeleteAs it happens me and a few mates were having a beer last night and the topic of Rinehart's orphans came up. We disagreed about whether or not it was a good idea for for rich people to adopt orphans with parents but we agreed about one thing - we sure as hell want to know if they are or not and wonder why Scott Neeson refuses to come out and tell us. I have a lot of time for CCF but wonder why Neeson plays his card so close to his chest.
Amazing isn't it, how many of you have time to sit around and gossip over a few beers instead of doing what Scott does which is going out and trying to actually help these kids. Maybe Scott simply does not have time to sit around having a few beers or to read all these blogs written by trolls with pathetic lives and nothing of value to do with their lives.
Delete@ Anonymous 8.51
DeleteSO, SCOTT DOES NOT HAVE TIME TO ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION:
ARE.GINA.RINEHART'S. ORPHANS.ORPHANS?
GIVE ME A BREAK!
Why the fuck should he answer your question? What business is it of yours if they are orphans or not. This is between Scott and the parents.
DeleteYou should read what you just wrote, you fucktard. I cant believe it. Its up to Neeson and the parents to decide if the girls are to be called orphans or not. What planet are you from?
DeleteYou really are an idiot 9.08pm. If he does not read your blog in the first place then how can he answer your question. The same no doubt goes for Gina because unlike you both of them have a life. The only reason I bother is that I find it pathetic that people such as you are more interested if we call a child an orphan or not compared to the changes for the better people such as Gina and CCF are capable of making to the kids and their families lives. It gives me a better prospective on life to take an occasional look under the rocks and find scum like you and be thankful I lack the bitterness towards mankind that you appear to thrive on.
Delete@ Anonymous 9.48
DeleteHow do you know Neeson does not read the blog? Has he told you this personally? If he has, perhaps you might like to let him know that if he can find 30 seconds in his very bsusy day saving Cambodian children from their families, he might like to answer the question:
ARE.GINA.RINEHART'S. ORPHANS. ORPHANS?
If Neeson cannot find 30 seconds in his busy schedule to answer the questions perhaps you can answer on his behalf
with best wishes 'the idiot'
Anonymous 7.33 thanks for telling us upfront what your agenda is here - play. For you this is a game and you like to play it by your own dirty rules. I dont agree with a lot of what Ricketson writes but he is just asking out loud questions that me and my friends talk about all the time but everyone is scared shitless to say out loud. Thewre should be a debate about the pros and cons of rich people like Madonna and Angelina Jolie and Gina Rinehart adopts kids with mums and dads and people like Neeson passing them off as orphans and big noting himself in the process.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite interesting that none of the Cambodian press (including the 'no name' editor, Chad Williams) want to get involved in this story that is obviously a lie from both CCF and Rinehart. What pathetic pieces of crap they are. How can they be Rinehart's daughters when they have their own Mom. It would be great if someone could expose where the parents of these girls live, not speculate, as several have, that the families are being taken care of.
ReplyDeleteSo is Neeson selling the girls to be 'adopted'?
Anonymous 8:23, Are you referring to the girls that Neeson has taken from the families and that he then sells them to wealthy contributors?
DeleteAnonymous 8;26, YES, those girls. If the information above is reliable, it sure looks like he takes them from their families and then 'sells' them to rich donors. No one goes to jail for that?
DeleteANSWER.THE.QUESTION.SCOTT.
ReplyDeleteARE. GINA. RINEHART'S. ORPHANS. ORPHANS?
YES?
NO?
CALL. OFF. YOUR. TROLLS. AND. STOP. KEEPING. US. ALL. IN. SUSPENSE.
Dear Scott
ReplyDeleteThe trolls commenting on my blog, advocating on your behalf, have shifted their position from (a) How do you know Gina Rinehart’s 9 ‘Cambodian daughters’ are not orphans to, (b) Why does it matter since Neeson is providing them with a good life. One has even suggested that whether or not the girls are referred to as ‘orphans’ or no one’s business other than your own and the parents of the…’orphans’!
Scott Neeson blog trolls insist that you are much too busy a man to read my blog so, just to make it a little easier for you, I have included below all that has appeared on the most recent blog - # 113.
If you cannot find 5 minutes to read it, perhaps you can find 30 seconds to answer just one question:
Are Gina Rinehart’s 9 ‘Cambodian daughters’ orphans or not?
If the answer is ‘yes’ it will take you considerably less than 30 seconds to answer.
cheers
James
Believe me, he reads and is aware of what is written here. He has changed his tactics since you have started to write about him here James. No more posted photos on FaceBook squeezing children's asses and with them pictured shirtless. He tries to show how much he helps families with his projects. This after taking over 700 children from their families. Only a few educated people know that he spent less than 7% of his 2013 revenue on families. He knows what is being said and he has concerns. He wishes that he could cover up some of his POVERTY PIMPING with a new shiny coat of paint.
DeleteIf he does not read your blog how is he going to see the question ? Surely even you cannot be so dopey as not to understand that, and before you come back with "yes he does read it" what PROOF do you have of that, and we are not talking your normal incorrect guesswork and paranoia where you call many different bloggers Scott in your responses.
ReplyDeleteSimple, Anonymous 11.29.
ReplyDeleteI emailed Scott, as I always do. He may not, of course, bother to read my email. His choice. Whilst you and fellow Neeson trolls can crow all you like about how busy a man Neeson is and how he is under no obligation to answer questions, there are many who disagree with you and who believe that a person in control of a multi-million dollar budget (provided by sponsors and donors) should be accountable for how the money is spent and how the NGO he heads up is run. If anyone with a lot of money can acquire an 'orphan' through CCF lots of questions arise. And these questions should be addressed. Should anyone who is very rich be able to 'adopt' 9 'orphans'? If a billionaire man comes along and wants 9 'orphans' to educate and fly around the world, is that OK?
There is a fine line between patronage and exploitation - especially in a country like Cambodia in which there are many materially poor families and an excess of very wealthy NGOs. Safeguards need to be in place - placed there not just by the Cambodian government but by the NGO community. Why is the NGO community not, with one voice, asking the question:
"Scott, are these girls orphans or not?"
The silence of the NGO community raises yet more questions!
Now for the first time we agree James, yes - Scott is in charge of a multi-million dollar budget provided by sponsors and donors, and I have no doubt that if anybody identifies themselves to Scott through the correct channels as a sponsor or donor and asks a question that Scott will do his utmost to answer it honestly (as he has always done for me as a sponsor when I have questioned anything) The problem is you appear to be neither a sponsor or donor but just somebody who wants to stir things up and really I would suggest you know very little about the 9 kids Gina generously supports other than what you read in newspapers that you discredit with every other opportunity you get. As has been asked of you many times before is it REALLY that important if people are using the general term orphan (whether intentionally understanding the problem you have with the word or not) Surely you must agree that the important thing is the well being of the kids and their families so why the great hang up on the word orphan ?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 12;23, You mean the well-being of children that Scott has taken from their Mothers. Children taken from their Mothers are not orphans. Great harm is done to children taken from their parents. Cambodia will pay dearly for the work done by Scott (and others) as he creates the new lost generation. Selling children, if that is what he has done, should be prosecuted.
DeleteDear Anonymous 12.23
DeleteAgreed, Scott is in charge of a multi-million budget provided by sponsors and donors.
You 'doubt' that anybody who identifies themselves as a sponsor or donor will refuse to answer questions honestly.
Are we to take from this that you do not believe, journalist, filmmakers bloggers and others have a right to ask questions? Have I misunderstood you here?
You refer to me as "just somebody who wants to stir things up". Well, this is a large part of what journalists do - stir things up by asking questions of people in positions of power who do not like to have their activities scrutinised. And most journalists know from experience that the first response on the part of many of those who do not like to be scrutinised is to shoot the messenger. There is a good deal of that going on on this blog.
You are right, I know very little about the 9 kids Gina supports. Hence my questions. How do you expect me and others to know anything if we don't ask? If may well be that this program is a model of how individual members of a family can be provided with a first class education whilst other members of the family are assisted to become self-sufficient. If so, this is wonderful news. Morris is to be applauded for having started the initiative and Neeson for carrying it forward. And, of course, Rinehart is to be congratulated for putting her money where her mouth it.
On the other hand it may be that these girls have been plucked from their families, alienated from their families and culture. We just don't know. What we do know, however, is that the packaging of this project has required that the girls be referred to as 'orphans'. If they are not in fact orphans, if they have families, Neeson and Rinehart have lied.
...to be continued...
...following on...
DeleteThis is just a high profile case of a phenomenon that is wide-spread in Cambodia - children with families being 'packaged' as orphans to generate sympathy and money from generous sponsors and donors. I doubt that you will find anyone who disagrees with the figure of 75% as the number of orphans in Cambodian orphanages who are not orphans. You, like many an NGO, believe that these kids are being given an opportunity to get better educations, be better fed, clothed and housed than they would be if they stayed with their families. The literature on this is extensive and you should acquaint yourself with it. It costs between 5 and 9 times as much to support a disadvantaged child in an institution as it does to support them in a family and community context. So, from a purely financial point of view, it makes no sense to help the bulk of these kids in institutional settings. It makes more financial sense to help their entire family in a community context. This is not as easy a concept to sell to sponsors and donors as is the orphan concept. "This poor little kid has no mum and dad. Can you help her?" This is an easy concept to sell - especially if there is a very photogenic child to display. The more difficult concept to sell is this: "Here is a child whose family is very poor. The family needs a well and proper sanitation and to have their thatched roof repaired because it leaks during the monsoon season."
This is the reality for poor families and to present the kids from these families as 'orphans' makes donors and sponsors feel good but distracts attention (and resources) from the problems that really need to be addressed to help the entire family.
As for Neeson and CCF helping entire families, this may be true in a minority of cases. For the majority of families the best they can hope for in a year is $250 worth of rice. I have spoken with many such families. One, with 5 children that were in CCF care, is headed up by a woman who earns $1,000 a year working in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump. When five of her eight children were in CCF residential care, if CCF's tax return is to be believed (as I think it must be) CCF was claiming that it cost $4,000 a year to house and educate one child. So, CCF was taking in $20,000 a year to care for five of her kids whilst she was left to support the remaining 3 on $1000 a year and received only $250 a year in rice support.
Her five children may not be referred to as 'orphans' on the CCF website but they are presented to potential donors and sponsors and kids who have no family to take care of them. This is not true. They have a family. It just happens to be a very poor family. And, in so many of the families I have come into contact with, the cause of their extreme poverty is accruing huge debts to money lenders who charge exorbitant rates of interest. Often, the reason for borrowing a few hundred dollars was the need to pay medical bills accrued through sickness of one member of the family. When they could not repay the loans they had to give up their one asset - their land and home.
The solution to such problems must he holistic. It must involve helping the entire family and not simply one member of it.
James, I really am not going to waste my time responding to most of the nonsense you have published above again. As you claim to be a journalist I am somewhat surprised however that in paragraph 5 you appear not to even know the correct name for Mr Morrish, I guess this gives us an idea on the accuracy of some of your other information.
DeleteI will however just address a couple of your points in paragraph 4 of your 2.12am post. You are 100% correct that many families borrow money at exorbitant rates, which is exactly why CCF for quite some time now have (to the annoyance of the money lenders) been helping to pay some of these loans out. You are again correct in your assessment that these bills have been accrued because of medical bills through sickness in the family. Perhaps you could explain why you have not mentioned in your many blogs that through their medical and dental programs CCF have they are greatly helping the families (not only children) cover some of their medical costs as you are such an expert on the workings of CCF. Possibly Mr Rickertson it is simply because you do not have a clue about what CCF does (which is very evident from many of your posts)
P.S I am not Scott Neeson OR Steve Morrish
Correct 12.23, IF anybody has taken children from their mothers and sold them then they should be prosecuted, IF you do it, IF I do it or IF Scott does it. However I have never seen Scott or CCF portray these children as orphans, the press do on many occasions granted but just check the CCF website out and see how many are described as orphans as opposed to the number of references to keeping the family unit together. I know from personal experience with the child I sponsor family support is one of the most vital parts of the organisation. Just look at the huge effort CCF make to send the kids and their families back to the provinces every year (please note not just the kids but also their parents living in Phnom Penh) Study the website carefully as I did before sponsoring a child and you will see that most of what is written on this blog is just rubbish
ReplyDeleteFrom their 2013 tax report, you can see that less than 7% of their revenue was spent on suporting families. Go figure.
DeletePS Who is it that writes the CCF website? hahahahaha
DeleteAnonymous 1;11, please tell us more about the child you sponsor. Does he/she live at CCF? Does he/she have other brothers and sisters? Do they live at CCF also? Is he/she from the provinces, Stueng Meanchay or where? Do you pay $125 a month to an organization that took in $4.5M in 2013, that they didn't know how to spend and just let it sit in the bank and even in 2013, were taking in nearly $30,000 a DAY!
DeleteWhere on earth do you get the 7% figure from?
DeleteDear Anonymous 1.11
DeleteWhen reading the CCF website, bear in mind that this is a marketing exercise. The website is designed to convince you that you should give your money to CCF. This is true of all NGOs. All that you read on their websites should be taken with a huge grain of salt. What you could do, however, what any potential donor to any NGO dealing with kids should do, is ask: " Is this child an orphan? Does this child have a mum, a dad, brothers and sisters? Are you helping the entire family?"
The narrative Scott has relied upon in the past does not involve the use of the word 'orphan'. It can be summed up as. "These children come from families in which alcohol, violence and neglect make family life impossible. I have come to rescue these kids from their hopeless parents and give them a better life."
Yes, I am sure there are some violent, abusive and neglectful parents (as there are in our own culture) but the overwhelming majority of the parents I have met with kids in institutional care are simply very very poor. The families need to be helped to extricate themselves from endemic poverty, not have their kids removed from their families.
Anonymous 2;15, 2013 took in $10.600,000. on Community Outreach spent $778,116 You do the math. COMMUNITY OUTREACH - CCF HAS ESTABLISHED A COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM THAT SERVES THE
DeleteCOMMUNITIES SURROUNDING THE STEUNG MEANCHEY GARBAGE DUMP. GENERALLY CONSIDERED THE
MOST IMPOVERISHED AND OSTRACIZED PEOPLE IN CAMBODIA, THE PROGRAM PROVIDES ACCESS TO
SUBSIDIZED RICE AND MEALS, HOME COUNSELING, SOCIAL WORKERS, EMERGENCY LOANS, JOB
PLACEMENTS AND EMERGENCY HOUSING. Here is a link to their 2013 tax info. https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/images/stories/financial/CCF_990_Form_2013.pdf
No anonymous 2.10 am the child I sponsor at CCF does not live at CCF (as don't the vast majority of sponsored kids) Yes the child I sponsor at CCF has brothers and sisters, No the brothers and sisters do not live at CCF, Yes he/she is originally from the provinces, but now lives in Stueng Meanchay. Yes, I very willingly pay $125 per month to CCF and am exceedingly happy with where it goes and what CCF do for poor families in the area such as provide medical and dental care to those that cannot otherwise afford it, I am also happy to see the subsidised rice program CCH have as well as the Star Bakery which provides nutrient enhanced bread to the families of many kids at CCF etc etc etc.
DeleteOf course you could also educate yourself on the other things that CCF provide by taking time to visit their website. Ref 4.5 million in the bank, what makes you think they do not know how to spend it and that it is not earmarked for other projects that are currently being set up to further assist the families in Steung Meanchey and educate their children thus helping to bring an entire community out of the poverty cycle.
Finally you might like to know it has never in any way been suggested to me that the child I sponsor is an orphan or suffers in any way from having violent neglectful or alcoholic parents. From day 1 I was informed truthfully of the childs background as I believe all sponsors of children at CCF are. Hopefully this has fully answered your questions
This was recently posted about CCF on the Charity Navigator site. Can any of you CCF trolls tell me even one word that is not accurate?
ReplyDeleteThis organization has taken over 700 children from their families, to be raised in institutional care. If you think that is such a good idea, then please send your own children to institutional care. In 2013, they raised over $10.6M or nearly $30,000 per DAY 365 days a year.
This organization has as the head of its child protection unit (CPU), a convicted felon who stole drugs and money while he worked in drug enforcement for the Australian Crime Commission. According to 'The Australian', he fled to Cambodia after the PIC hearings and was informally extradited back to Australia to stand trial last year (2007). The full article is here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/ex-nca-cops-plea-deal-over-drug-sting/story-e6frg6o6-1111116525996
If you'd like to see how CCF actually deals with the impoverished, check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
Does anyone think that this is a great example of management that you want to give your hard earned money to??
I think that Charity Navigator is a scam. My posts re the Cambodian Children's Fund have been deleted. Everyone I know who has made a negative comment has had it deleted. I wonder if, in order to have negative comments deleted some kind of payment must be made to Charity Navigator?
DeleteWere all these pro-Neeson comments made by Neeson or by trolls acting on his behalf? Does it matter? If the trolls are his spokespeople he has chosen them badly. They have presented two propositions that do not stand up to close (or even superficial) scrutiny - that it doesn't matter if the girls are orphans or not, as long as they are being helped and that only sponsors and donors have a right to ask Neeson questions. In other words, the media can fuck off. The question of whether or not Gina Rinehart's orphans are orphans should be investigated properly by someone whose findings will not be influenced by Neeson's power and money.
ReplyDeleteI spent last night digging after someone said that Morrish started the program and look what I found. https://m2.facebook.com/notes/sisha-international/sisha-launches-new-hope-scholarship-award-program-and-sends-3-girls-to-universit/10150093997911959/
ReplyDeleteSo the information that the posted stated about Morrish and SISHA starting the program was true. The information that the poster stated about the girls having families and being selected for a scholarship was true. It can't be disputed because you can see the girls families in the pictures and there is even a picture of Morrish in it.
So how has Neeson suddenly claimed this program and states that the girls are orphans. Sounds like fraud to me.
james, has Morrish replied yet to your email. He is the only one who can clarify this situation.
So surely that proves that Neeson and Rinehart have lied in the news article. The girls aren't orphans. I think we should focus are attention to Rinehart - has anyone got her contact email so we can alls end her emails asking why she has lied? Not to mention the journalist - I wonder how much money she was paid to write the false story?
DeleteSomeone has re-branded the girls as 'orphans'. If may be the person who wrote the book, it may be the journalist who write the article and it may be Scott Neeson.
DeleteGiven the prevalence of orphanage scams in Cambodia it would be good to have this clarified. Just who introduced the word 'orphan' into this story?
Anonymous 7.34
DeleteI can’t find the Facebook link you mentioned but I did find the following, written by Stephanie Wood in Feb 2014 for the Sydney Morning Herald.
The question is: How and why did the story change from Mr Rinehart assisting some students to her having ‘adopted’ 9 orphan Cambodian girls?
If the fault lies with the journalist who wrote the article, she should correct it.
Stephanie Wood's slightly edited article:
“Gina Rinehart reveals her soft side, mothering nine Cambodian students
Gina Rinehart's…relationship with nine young Cambodian women from poor backgrounds has been conducted somewhat more discreetly.
''She has super-invested in these girls,'' said Sean Looney, a former staffer at SISHA, the Phnom Penh-based organisation that manages Mrs Rinehart's ''Hope Scholarship'' program.
It's unclear what triggered the mining magnate's interest in mothering girls who aren't her own - and buying them gifts including stilettos and iPads….
Mrs Rinehart's support is not just financial - emails from Mr Huang make it clear that she takes an interest in the welfare of the scholarship holders as well.
Make sure the ''nice cook'' is retained, she wrote in a 2013 email seen by Fairfax Media in which she expressed concern the girls not be distracted from their studies by domestic matters.
The beneficiaries - chosen for the scholarship based on their academic achievements at school - live near the university with the housekeeper/cook.
Cambodian sources say Mrs Rinehart's manner with the girls is ''lovely and very warm'', and that she's generous with gifts that have also included motorbikes.
SISHA staff suggested she decrease her monthly allowances to the girls - from $250 each a month to $100 - given that it's unlikely they will earn that sort of money when they enter the Cambodian workforce.
The first thing a new Hope Scholarship girl gets is a passport so they can be taken to Singapore or Bangkok for full medical check-ups.
When Mrs Rinehart stays in Phnom Penh, she checks into the luxury Raffles Hotel Le Royal, where she has hosted the girls for extravagant buffet dinners. At Christmas, they visited her in Siem Reap.
''She'll come to Cambodia and stay a night or two,'' says a Cambodian insider. ''And she only has eyes for them, too. She doesn't want to talk to program staff or anything, she just wants to see the girls.''
Mrs Rinehart keeps in contact with the girls via email, sending them photos and encouragement. ''She always responds to their emails, but doesn't wish to intrude on their studies other than for her visits,'' Mr Huang said.
''She looks forward to seeing them each year, including twice when she has flown them to Kuala Lumpur so they could be with her when she received international awards.''
During one such visit to Kuala Lumpur, some of the girls joined her at a fancy event.
Before the event, she played mother, taking the girls to buy high-heeled shoes and to get their hair done.
According to one witness, Mrs Rinehart told the girls they didn't need to have their make-up done professionally because she said they were beautiful just the way they were.
Why would Morrish reply or even bother to read this blog - he has been constantly flogged by the likes of bloggers like Ricketson and that other 'got what he deserved' khmer 400 prick, so why would he decide that now, after all that flack, he would like to help by providing information.
ReplyDeleteGet off your high horse you idiots. You are dealing with people like Neeson and Morrish who have a brain, who have smarts and have more 'get up and go' than any of you will ever have.
For those of you who don't like the colourful use of language, I will put it simply -
YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF WHINGING FUCKWITS!
Anonymous 7.39
DeleteWhat Morrish could have done is say, simply, words to the effect of: "Ms Rinehart generously offered to help some poor Cambodian women with their education and I helped facilitate that."
This is what seems to be the case, looking (thanks to Google) at the history of the program it is clear the girls are not orphans but are poor.
It seems highly likely that the 'orphan' reference is a mistake on the part of the journalist who wrote the article.
Thanks to Anonymous 7:40 way up above for your response. The page wouldn't let me reply, I think it might either allow a limited amount of space or a limited number of replies. Are you aware that for half days, your sponsored child attends the public school? Are you aware that $125 a month in Cambodia will pay a full time teacher? Are you aware that this organization you support and defend, HAS taken over 700 children from their families? Are you aware that this place you send your $125 per month has over $8M in assets as of 2013? Are you aware that your child is protected by a CPU run by a a convicted felon who stole drugs and money while he worked in drug enforcement for the Australian Crime Commission? Are you aware that the links associated with CCF showing incredible 'ratings of this organization' actually take down or 'close' reviews that are not 5 Star ratings? I'm happy that you have either no problem with it or are unconscious to the fact that you've been HAD, drank the koolaid!! If you'd like see how CCF actually deals with families whose children they have taken, you should watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
ReplyDeleteYes 8.24pm, I am quite well aware of the correct facts (and not necessarily as you have portrayed them above) I would dispute that CCF have TAKEN 700 kids from their families (but that can be left to discuss another day) and I would wonder why you trolls continue repeating the story of James McCabe. This story was well publicised in national newspapers a long time ago. I believe neither Scott Neeson or James McCabe tried to hide it, in fact I think they did exactly the opposite before CPU even got up and running properly. Regarding your video clip - you refer to families but there appears to be only one clip and I have a feeling there might well be another side to the story, can you please provide information on the other families you mention. I am sure however that like Ricketson you will continue to roll out the same stories again and again and again
ReplyDeleteNow you have me thinking that you are just one of the CCF trolls. You are not shocked by that video? You approve of James McCabe leading the CPU (do you really think everyone know about the felon, it is not on Neeson's website)? You are happy to throw your money to throw you money on Neeson's $8M pile to help him take children from their Mothers, nothing I can do about it. As PT Barnham said, there is a sucker born every minute. .
DeleteWhat message does it send when CCF allows people who were convicted for serious crimes to be involved in the organisation? Regardless of whether or not he is a good investigator, he stole and went to jail. Surely there are other candidates around the world that have ethics.
DeleteGreat video to see how CCF treats the impoverished. Thanks for sharing. Keep up your great work James.
DeleteI personally think that Mc Cabe's record is somewhat irrelevant IF he is good at his job and if he is qualified to do that job.
DeleteDear Anonymous 8.59
DeleteYou write, "I would dispute that CCF have TAKEN 700 kids". Fair enough, but the question is: "How many of these 700+ kids have no families?"
If they have families, why is CCF not assisting the children in a family and community context? CCF would be able to assist between 5 and 9 as many disadvantaged kids by doing so in a family rather than an institutional setting.
Anonymous 8.59
DeleteVis a vis the video, if there is another side to the story, Scott Neeson has refused an invitation to present it.
At the time I shot it there were several other families who had had the same experience but were afraid to be filmed saying so.
I saw McCabe the other day drinking beers out the front of one of the girl bars with several girls sitting next to him. Good work McCabe - telling us you are there protect children and yet you are exploiting young girls who work in bars.
ReplyDeleteNot surprising though - we have read numerous comments about your criminal activity and activities with Khmer bar girls.
Frankly, I think this falls into the category of scuttlebutt. What makes you think Mc Cabe was/is exploiting "young girls who work in bars"?
DeleteAs for the reference to "numerous comments", scuttlebutt again.
Then, James, I think the frequent conversation of McCabe meeting his current wife in a seedy bar when she was 16 years old, would fall under your definition of 'scuttlebutt' also?
DeleteYes, it does. It is not something that I pay too much attention to. Even if it is true my response would be "So what!?" They fell in love and got married. No-one business but theirs.
DeleteSo its OK for middle aged men to fuck 16 year old girls!!!!!!!!!!
DeleteYou can't help yourself, can you?
DeleteIf a middle aged man walks into a 'girlie bar' and pays money to have sex with a 16 year old girl that is not only illegal but wrong on a number of levels.
If a middle aged man walks into a 'girlie bar', meets a 16 year old girl there, falls in love and marries her, that is a quite different scenario.
Context is important to bear in mind before making snap judgements.
Sounds like Ricketson has received a phone call from McCabe and now he is making him sound like a saint. He is much worse than neeson and yet you write that he is a good guy doing great work regardless of the fact that he stole money and went to jail.
DeleteYou are a fucking idiot rickets - you have been made to look a fool so many times.
Cockhead!
Ricketson - McCabe works for an organisation that is supposed to protect children and yet he is drinking in bars that use girls and lure them into the sex industry. Are you fucking for real thinking that McCabe isnt exploiting them by drinking there.
DeleteSeriously, do you actually think before you open your mouth?
anonymous 4:56
DeleteThis falls into the 'troll' category but I'll respond to it anyway.
Sorry to disappoint, but no call from Mc Cabe. I have never met or spoken with the man or communicated with him in any way.
Where did I say, intimate or even hint that Mc Cabe is a saint?
Where did I say he was doing good work?
Do you have no respect at all for facts?
In what way is he 'worse than Neeson.
Yes, Mc Cabe stole money and went to jail. I happen to think it inappropriate that he heads up a child protection unit but I have no idea whether he is good at his job or not and so will leap to no conclusions.
I am puzzled as to why you bother to make comments on a blog site that you hold in such contempt? Do you have nothing better to do with your time?
Anonymous 4.58
DeleteProbably the same person as 4.56 but it matters not.
Again, I think it inappropriate that Mc Cabe hangs out in 'girlie bars' if, in fact, that is what he does. If he is merely having a drink with some mates at a bar where girls work I would not immediately leap to the conclusion you have.
If Mc Cabe is exploiting girls by simply having a drink in a bar that employs girls, does this mean that every man who has a drink in a bar with young women working in it is, by definition, exploiting them?
Typical. You are happy to have readers who comment on your blog - if they agree with you they are correct - if they disagree they are trolls - you are pathetic and the more your blog goes on the more the fool you look.
DeleteAnd just to remind you, there are numerous good people who are reading your blogs who not agree with you and think you are a fool.
I think you are a troll and you think I am a fool. Isn't free speech a wonderful thing!
Delete